Intersession Repeatability of Acoustic Rhinometry Measurements in Healthy Volunteers

Overview

Journal Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

Date 2012 Sep 15

PMID 22977713

Citations 6

Authors

Mohammed Dhafer Al Ahmari

Jadwiga Anna Wedzicha

John Robert Hurst

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Acoustic rhinometry is a rapid, reliable and non-invasive technique for the evaluation of conditions associated with impaired nasal patency. This study aimed to examine the intersession repeatability of acoustic rhinometry measurements of unilateral and combined nasal parameters in a group of healthy volunteers.

Methods: Twenty healthy volunteers were studied. In each subject, acoustic rhinometry measurements were performed on five consecutive days, with multiple recordings. Five clinically relevant parameters were measured in each session and the intersession repeatability of these measurements was expressed in terms of mean coefficient of variation, intraclass correlation coefficient and inter-item correlations.

Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients showed a high, and greater repeatability over time for all the combined (mean) values compared to the unilateral values. All intraclass correlations for combined values were ≥0.80 confirming almost perfect agreement. All intraclass correlations and inter-item correlations were associated with P<0.001. The mean coefficient of variation was low (<10%) for all but the proximal minimum cross sectional area (MCA1) measurements.

Conclusion: Acoustic rhinometry provides highly repeatable measurements of nasal patency, which is best for combined (mean) nasal parameters. This property makes it suitable for use in the diagnosis and follow-up of conditions associated with nasal obstruction, either structural or functional.

Citing Articles

Reliability of Acoustic Pharyngometry and Rhinometry Examination in Children and Adolescents.

Hansen C, Sonnesen L J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2022; 13(3):e4.

PMID: 36382012 PMC: 9617254. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2022.13304.

The Reliability and Influence of Body Position on Acoustic Pharyngometry and Rhinometry Outcomes.

Knappe S, Sonnesen L J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021; 11(4):e1.

PMID: 33598109 PMC: 7875104. DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2020.11401.

The Reliability of Polyvinylidene Fluoride Sensor for Intra- and Intersession Measurements.

Manjunatha R, Prakash S, Rajanna K Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 71(Suppl 3):1935-1939.

PMID: 31763271 PMC: 6848573. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-018-1349-9.

Using magnetic resonance imaging to quantify the inflammatory response following allergen challenge in allergic rhinitis.

Leaker B, Scadding G, Jones C, Barnes P Immun Inflamm Dis. 2016; 3(4):445-54.

PMID: 26733348 PMC: 4693719. DOI: 10.1002/iid3.86.

Objective assessment of persistent rhinitis in Chinese and its relationship with serum indicators.

Cheng K, Wang S, Lin S, Zhou S Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 272(7):1679-85.

PMID: 25135578 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3241-x.

References

Hopkins C . Re: Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010; 35(2):147-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02102.x. View

Andre R, Vuyk H, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenite G . Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010; 34(6):518-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.02042.x. View

Ouriques D, Carlini D, Fujita R, Pignatari S, Weckx L . Correlation between fiberoptic nasal endoscopy and acoustic rhinometry in adults without nasal complaints. Am J Rhinol. 2006; 20(4):375-8. DOI: 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2874. View

Kesavanathan J, Swift D, Fitzgerald T, Permutt T, Bascom R . Evaluation of acoustic rhinometry and posterior rhinomanometry as tools for inhalation challenge studies. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1996; 48(3):295-307. DOI: 10.1080/009841096161348. View

Silkoff P, Chakravorty S, Chapnik J, Cole P, Zamel N . Reproducibility of acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry in normal subjects. Am J Rhinol. 1999; 13(2):131-5. DOI: 10.2500/105065899782106689. View

Tarhan E, Coskun M, Cakmak O, Celik H, Cankurtaran M . Acoustic rhinometry in humans: accuracy of nasal passage area estimates, and ability to quantify paranasal sinus volume and ostium size. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005; 99(2):616-23. DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00106.2005. View

Gilain L, Coste A, Ricolfi F, Dahan E, Marliac D, Peynegre R . Nasal cavity geometry measured by acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 123(4):401-5. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1997.01900040037006. View

Corey J . Acoustic rhinometry: should we be using it?. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006; 14(1):29-34. DOI: 10.1097/01.moo.0000193166.57129.80. View

Corey J, Gungor A, Nelson R, Fredberg J, Lai V . A comparison of the nasal cross-sectional areas and volumes obtained with acoustic rhinometry and magnetic resonance imaging. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 117(4):349-54. DOI: 10.1016/S0194-5998(97)70125-6. View

10.

Hilberg O, Pedersen O . Acoustic rhinometry: recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl. 2001; 16:3-17. View

11.

Cheung E, Citardi M, Fakhri S, Cain J, Batra P, Luong A . Comparison of optical rhinometry to acoustic rhinometry using nasal provocation testing with Dermatophagoides farinae. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 143(2):290-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.034. View

12.

Castano R, Theriault G, Gautrin D, Ghezzo H, Trudeau C, Malo J . Reproducibility of acoustic rhinometry in the investigation of occupational rhinitis. Am J Rhinol. 2007; 21(4):474-7. DOI: 10.2500/ajr.2007.21.3039. View

13.

Nurminen M, Hytonen M, Sala E . Modelling the reproducibility of acoustic rhinometry. Stat Med. 2000; 19(9):1179-89. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000515)19:9<1179::aid-sim420>3.0.co;2-k. View

14.

Hilberg O, Jackson A, Swift D, Pedersen O . Acoustic rhinometry: evaluation of nasal cavity geometry by acoustic reflection. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1989; 66(1):295-303. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1989.66.1.295. View

15.

Numminen J, Ahtinen 3rd M, Huhtala H, Laranne J, Rautiainen M . Correlation between rhinometric measurement methods in healthy young adults. Am J Rhinol. 2002; 16(4):203-8. View

16.

Cakmak O, Tarhan E, Coskun M, Cankurtaran M, Celik H . Acoustic rhinometry: accuracy and ability to detect changes in passage area at different locations in the nasal cavity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006; 114(12):949-57. DOI: 10.1177/000348940511401211. View

17.

Cankurtaran M, Celik H, Coskun M, Hizal E, Cakmak O . Acoustic rhinometry in healthy humans: accuracy of area estimates and ability to quantify certain anatomic structures in the nasal cavity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008; 116(12):906-16. DOI: 10.1177/000348940711601207. View

18.

Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, Hilberg O . Acoustic rhinometry: validation by three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000; 89(3):1013-21. DOI: 10.1152/jappl.2000.89.3.1013. View

19.

Ognibene N, Merrick M, Ingersoll C . Intra- and intersession reliability of acoustic rhinometry in measuring nasal cross-sectional area. Ear Nose Throat J. 2001; 80(8):536, 539-40. View

20.

Harar R, Kalan A, Kenyon G . Improving the reproducibility of acoustic rhinometry in the assessment of nasal function. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2002; 64(1):22-5. DOI: 10.1159/000049263. View